Drunk Driver's Refusal of Sobriety Test Does Little To Curb Conviction
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 24, 2017
Criminal Criminal DUI-DWI Civil & Human Rights Constitutional Law
Summary: Blog post on the admissibility of statements made by people who have been arrested for a DUI and the Constitutional ramifications of allowing the evidence.
For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
In the case of State v. LeBlanc, a driver was convicted of the crimes of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and operating a motor vehicle while having an elevated blood alcohol content. The driver appealed on the claim that evidence of his refusal to perform a field sobriety test, his statement to an officer that he was not driving, and his subsequent admission that he was drunk were improperly admitted because the evidence was testimonial and compelled, and, thus, obtained in violation of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
Because the evidence challenged by driver concerned his refusal to take a field sobriety test, that evidence was incriminating only had to his intoxication, not as to whether he operated his vehicle, which was the only issue at trial. Defendant's claim that he had not been driving the vehicle was belied by a witness's testimony and defendant's own unchallenged statement to an officer that he never got the car out of the parking lot. The court found that even if the challenged evidence was improperly admitted, its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence that the driver sought to suppress was cumulative of other intoxication evidence submitted by the state; the challenged evidence was incriminating only as to the driver’s intoxication, the evidence of his intoxication was abundant, the driver did not contest at trial the fact that he was intoxicated, and the challenged evidence was not incriminating as to whether he had been operating the vehicle, which was the only issue at trial.
The court affirmed. “As noted, the evidence challenged by the [driver] concerned his refusal to take the field sobriety test. That evidence, however, which he claims violated his privilege against self-incrimination, is incriminating only as to his intoxication, not as to whether he operated the vehicle. The evidence of the [driver’s] intoxication was abundant” said the court. “Both [police officers] testified that the [driver] smelled of alcohol and that his speech was slurred. The state submitted the results of two blood alcohol tests taken after the [driver] was arrested, both indicating a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit.”
Maya Murphy P.C. has the resources and expertise to offer you the best possible representation throughout the criminal process. If you are facing criminal charges or wish to appeal your case, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
Source: State v. LeBlanc, 148 Conn. App. 503, 84 A.3d 1242, 2014 Conn. App. LEXIS 77, 2014 WL 712957 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014)
